4 ms·
From what I understand, there is the concern that potential new technologies wouldn't be allowed under a strict interpretation of net neutrality. For a hypothe
by derekp7 10y ago
From what I understand, there is the concern that potential new technologies wouldn't be allowed under a strict interpretation of net neutrality. For a hypothetical example: go back in time when voice over IP first came on the scene. At that time there wasn't enough excess bandwidth to guarantee voice packets would arrive on time. Now you could prioritize voice traffic, but you'd have to either charge a fee, or find a way to positively identify voice data (otherwise everyone would turn on the voice QOS flag in all their apps even if they didn't need it). This would then not be net neutral.
Of course, today there is enough excessive bandwidth that voice traffic doesn't need to be prioritized. But what about an application where an expert doctor is controlling a robotic surgical instrument from cross country? Would a special service class for those packets be allowed under net neutrality laws?
But the real reason, is that as soon as there is additional bandwidth available, technology finds a way to consume all of it and then some. So the ISPs want to be able to de-prioritize some heavy bandwidth users (such as bittorrent), and/or give higher priority to traffic with paying users like Netflix (for a toll fee, of course), or their own video services.
- pseudalopex 10y agoISPs charging their own customers for prioritization is completely compatible with net neutrality. Detecting and prioritizing voice would be open to interpretation but would probably be considered reasonable network management. Letting people mark whatever they want as latency-sensitive but charging more for it? Totally fine.
- derekp7 10y agoOf course, it is a fine line between an ISP allowing someone (who is not a customer) to pay them for higher priority, vs the ISP purposely maintaining a low quality route to certain other web sites to "encourage" them to pay up (this is what Comcast did with Netflix a while ago -- Netflix traffic came through a smaller pipe into Comcast, until Netflix paid up).
- pseudalopex 10y agoIt was more complicated than that. Level 3 took advantage of its peering agreement with Comcast to undercut Akamai for Netflix's business. Comcast argued that the agreement was meant for transit, not to subsidize Level 3's CDN operations. All three companies had valid points, and all three had ulterior motives.